First off, without such a law, I think the admissability of such evidence in court would be suspect. If you want some of the undesirables (child pron distributers, etc.) off the net, there has to be a mechanism by which the government can collect and present evidence. IANAL, but without a legal mechanism for wiretapping, wouldn't such evidence be inadmissable?
Second, the bloody thing grew out of DARPAnet right, and DARPA stands for what? And who pays DARPA's bills? I'm not drawing any conclusion here, but I won't speak for the tinfoil hat crowd.
Three, *anyone* with the right knowledge and tools can intercept/block/eavesdrop on public traffic, after all it *is* public. Given the government could accomplish this without legislation, well right back to the opening paragraph...
Four, so the bill dies still-born, so what? A warrant for a wire-tap still can be obtained. So if your data rides your phone line, you are still screwed. Cable modems and phone-free DSL might be a bit of a challenge, but I would suggest that since the government operated from the position that it owns the infrastructure of transmission for a long long time, that there probably are mechanisms which would allow for tapping these media. IANAL, but it seems likely.
PGP? Are you on glue? Do you really think PGP is going to protect your content? Please, think a little longer. Hell, most of the worlds fastest supercomputers live in installations with NL (LLNL, INEL, etc. etc.) at the end of their acronym, and one government agency seems to be a little shy about telling the world how fast their machines really are. If you really think PGP is going to defeat the resources of a nation-state, you deserve the prosecution you get. The kind and quiet folks over at NSA have been playing the cryptography game significantly longer than the internet has existed. Also they played against the varsity, other nation-states.
There are good reasons to allow virtual taps, and very few good reasons to deny them. Now, the language and form of the legislation is hugely important. We accept that law enforcement can obtain a warrant to tap your phone line. We understand the mechanism, and I didn't see many of you folks protesting that. If the law is well written it will allow law enforcement the means to get usable evidence, and still have mechanisms to protect us from abuse of the law.
There is nothing wrong with the concept, there is however significant reason to be concerned about the language and scope of the proposed legislation. So long as the proper speed bumps exist, and the required precautions taken to prevent abuse, there is no need for this law to be of any more concern to the average citizen than the wire-tapping law.
Bottom line, like the wiretapping law, this legislation seeks to define the conditions under which an indidual's rights can be suspended. Like all criminal law really, it is a central tenent of our judicial system. The government *is* allowed to abridge your rights, that is what imprisonment is. The law itself is not unusual......but like any other piece of criminal law, we should be very watchful of the language...
For those who haven't read it, try "The Permanent Floating Riot Club" by Larry Niven. I can't remember which anthologies it is in, but a worthwhile read. At the end you won't be surprised by this phenom, except maybe that it isn't worse...
First, non-intervention *is* a wonderful idea, if the world's governments all felt the same way. So, if you play the game by the rules, and everyone else ignores the rules, you made a good decision why? Remember the world is not a Utopia, some people (IE Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden) won't be impressed by your lofty Libertarian position. Thus, it is not pragmatic at all. Being pragmatic does not give you the luxury of ignoring history. There is a lot of recent history which people have honest grievances with. Now, had the US been Libertarian all along, granted, some of those problems might not exist. But, this is the real world, and those governments weren't and those problems exist, and taking the ostrich way out isn't going to change that.
Second, I'm sure the Libertarians would agree with the view that government exists to provide those things we cannot easily provide for ourselves. Mr. Badnarak's guarantee that we're morally free to unseat Saddam Hussein is completely unsupportable. What individual possessed the ability to provide that? Even a large group of individuals could not provide this for themselves.
What about that situation? Let's take a clear majority of the electorate, and have them want to have Saddam Hussein unseated. Isn't the government obligated to respect the wishes of the electorate? If they fail to do so, what does that say about their lofty platform? So why state the position as an absolute? Particularly one which can never be an absolute?
Further not taking a position, *is* taking a position. If you refuse to interfere with the genocidal actions of a government, you are supporting those actions with your inaction. You are sending a clear signal to the mass murderers that their actions are OK. Period, these folks aren't applying your lofty Libertarian beliefs to your inaction, they are applying their beliefs to your inaction. Their beliefs had them committing genocide in the first place, want to wager how they will interpret inaction?
Lastly, I ask *you* to consider the Lafayette Escadrille, and the thousands of Americans who joined the Foreign Legion prior to the entry of the US into WWI. Many of us knew about the Lafayette Escadrille, many of us know about the thousands of Americans who joined the FFL to partake in that conflict. Nor was the French flag the only one under which Americans fought in that war. But, you conveniently overlook the effect that the decisions of those young men may have had in the final decision of the US government to enter the war. The vast majority of Americans involved in that war, prior to US entry, were with Candaian and French units, very few fought on the other side of the trenchline. Also consistently over the course of the war, American enlistments in these same armies continued to rise...
Isn't it strange that the US entered that war on the side it did? I mean, you don't think the fact that so many of your young men made the same choice affected the decision do you?
Fast forward to the second installment of the European Civil War... Why did the US wait two years to enter the war? I don't suppose that large segments of the US population vocally expressed Pro-German sentiment had anything to do with it? Right up until Dec 7 1941, prognosticating which side the US would join, if it did, was 6/5 and pick 'em. After Dec 7, 1941, the choice was clear and simple, not only for the government, but the populace as well.
Vietnam proves my point yet again... The US got into Vietnam on principle (ideology) not because the populace demanded or required it. And the result of that conflict, both home and abroad was nothing more than the consequnces of a democracy ignoring it's mandate from the people who elected it.
Iraq, now you got a point there, on the surface... GWB didn't invade Iraq because of a mandate from the people. Again it was ideology driving the process. GWB invaded Irag because his ideological beliefs demanded it, not the American public.
Everyone else out there, take note! A well thought out response to a little piece of flippant posting...
But, one overarching transport medium is probably not possible, nor desirable. First and foremost, a single technology is easier to corrupt than multiple technologies. Which was the flippant point. There is more than one way to skin a cat. When we all decide otherwise, that just opens the door for a Microsoft to pee in the cat skinning...(which is the core issue, M$ peeing in USB)
Ultimately I think the convenience of monolithic standards is vastly outwieghed by the vibrant development environment that competing standards can bring to the table. Aftrer all, how much of USB2 development was driven by the fact firewire eclipsed USB1?
Ultimately, that kind of competition ought to be better for the consumer, right?
One of the questions above mentions pragmatism, and this is an issue where it comes into play. From both a pragmatic and principled perspective, the best foreign policy is one of non-intervention: Refusing to interfere in the internal affairs of, or intervene in the disputes of, other nations. From a pragmatic perspective, it's the best approach for the security of the United States. From a principled perspective, it avoids violating the rights of others.
Whoa there son... Are you running for President, or placating Hitler at Munich?
How does the candidate feel about the recent events in the former Yugoslavia?
Okay, so the candidate does not specifically address these issues. But, does anyone in this day and age really think genocide should be viewed as a viable internal policy by the government of the United States?
Now, I don't mean to imply that the candidate is an apologist, or that he would not take action if faced with ssuch a situation. But the candidate makes the above assertion without qualification. Something I think should make all of our ears perk up, and something that the candidate should clarify his position on.
Because, when I read that statement, it is not an example of pragmatism, but an excuse for moral cowardice. While it may be pragmatic to ignore the internal policies of genocidal dictator, is it right? Is is a desirable policy for the US to take?
Again, I'm not trying to imply anything, but if the statement is an absolute, I am concerned. If the statemnt is not an absolute, why did the candidate decline to define what conditions would make that position less than absolute...
Lastly, I would invite the candidate to consider one more option. Perhaps the problem is less with the ideologies espoused by all the parties, but the inability to divorce the ideal from the possible...
After all, in an ideal world, the Patriot act is an okay piece of legislation, because in an ideal world it would not be abused. But we don't live in an ideal world, and ideology is just another way of denying reality.
As long as politicians stay wedded to an ideology, any ideology, there is little chance of real world improvements. The libertarian ideology while different than the admittedly near identical ideologies of the "main" parties, shares one critical commonality with them, the lack of relevance to the real world.
Ideologies by nature, are internally consistent, but this implies that if one of those internal consistencies fails to work in the real world, than the rest of that house of cards is suspect... Ideology, quite simply is the methodology to attain a Utopian state. Given that we accept Utopia as an impossibility, why do we assign so much importance to the yellow-brick road which purpotedly leads to it?
Folks have mentioned other targets, and other methods (encrypting files etc.) as possible alternatives. The essential problem is that you are still modifying a user's personal files and system without their permission. In any case, the actions you are taking are malicious and unsanctioned, and the potential for legal exposure exists. At the very least devs should leave files not directly related to the app alone. Not only good programming practice, but ethical as well.
Having said that though, what about the case where the program detects a leaked serial number and immediately throws up a dialog. Said dialog tells you in no uncertain terms that the serial number supplied has been pirated, blah blah. Dialog then continues on to tell you that if you may continue the installation. Further the dialog explicitly and in horrifying detail tells you exactly what it will do if you do continue (erase ~, sleep with your wife, beat your kids, etc.) and then simply asks if you want to continue. If you're a nice guy, you make sure that they page down to the bottom of the dialog before allowing continue to be selected.
Voila! Now you have gotten the users permission to punish him for pirating your code. IANAL, but it's probably even legal. Best of all, you can curb one mailicious and one stupid tendency in one pass, piracy, and not reading dialogs...
I guess what I'm basically asking is, how do you propose to convince the vast majority of people to simply start ignoring some of the best music ever produced and refuse to purchase any of it any more - simply because the RIAA controls rights to it?
Actually, I would contend that music is not a monopoly, and that RIAA only controls the rights to a very small portion of all the music available. The whole panopoly of music available from RIAA members (both by genre and by quality) are available from sources which are not encumbered by RIAA control.
Besides, one of the rationalizations that often comes up is the quality of RIAA offerings. Apart from the contrdictory nature of such an argument (it's so bad I'll steal it...) if one truly believes that, then one has options other than unlawful distribution...
Utopian, sure a bit. A sacrifice, maybe, but what am I asking you to sacrifice? All I ask you to give up is convenience. RIAA is simply the most convenient way to get music, wether via lawful or unlawful distribution vectors. Really, that is the only service RIAA is offering.
Given the strong feelings that many profess to have about RIAA and it's members, is giving up the convenience that onerous a request?
People talk incessantly about their freedoms which RIAA seeks to violate. So what? Many of us have ancestors who gave up their lives for the freedoms which we debate here. Are we really doing their sacrifice a service when we violate those rights? Are we doing their sacrifice a service when we are too lazy to take simple steps to protect our rights?
If folk are too lazy to put some effort into protecting their rights, and find a better way than resorting to violating others rights, then perhaps we need to analyze just how important our freedoms are to us. When we resort to amoral and unethical means, what does that really say about our motivations? or our goals?
Bottom line, these are important issues, and laziness is *NOT* and acceptable reason for not doing what needs to be done. And, when I talk aobut laziness, I'm including both doing nothing, and participating in the unlawful distribution of RIAA controlled material...
As for RIAA knowing, and the strategy they have espoused. Well, first, they can try all the legislation they want. They are unlikely to be able to prevent you from continuing to get your music from non RIAA sources. Some of this legislation is bad, and just wrong though. But whose purpose do you serve when you are too lazy to react, or too lazy to react correctly?
Is it just me, or does anyone see the potential for collision with the GPL?
IANAL, but, the GPL is based on a simple fact: For any given binary source code exists. This software has the potential to permanently alter that equation. What exactly is the status of source built by reverse engineering a translated binary? I think there is a potential issue there for the GPL, and even some poorly written Closed Source Licenses... (though these are rare nowadays...)
I wouldn't care to bet one way or the other, but maybe a pre-emptive rewording of certain portions of the GPL is in order...
I have to disagree. RIAA *will* get the message, loud and clear. When sales drop, and concurrently the download activity on the hashes which correspond to their property get lower and lower, it will be very clear that this is not a result of piracy...
Now, I don't think they will aknowledge that the message is being sent, or that they have received it, at least not directly. But, RIAA is no less exposed to certain fundamental truths of the human condition that anyone else, the operative one here being that it is damn near impossible once lost, to regain a customer.
So, they may not act like they are getting the message, but they will be. Any group that has the wherewithal to identify, and try to fool with the process of unlawful distribution certainly has the data to correctly identify the nature of such a movement.
Educating folk is a good way, but if you are educating them just to get allies to oppose their legislation, and those people start pirating because they can't come to the right conclusion, what have you accomplished? Exactly, nothing.
Educating folk is critical. You have to educate them as to their options first. Educating them to oppose legislation is wonderful, but if they keep buying RIAA CDs....
Edudacting folk in this case *MANDATES* that you give them responsible options. it *MANDATES* that you give them alternatives which don't muddy the message or support the foe.
Folks don't get it. RIAA is fighting this battle on every front they can identify. They have vast resources, the will to use them, and the evidence to justify their agenda. If we don't start fighting RIAA with our brains, instead of our greed, with a coherent complete plan, instead of the fractious little ones, and most of all, dealing with the real core issues that we can address, effectively, instead of having limited viewpoints, or convincing ourselves the message won't get through...
...then we lose. Maybe in the end RIAA does too, but that will be little consolation if they get bad laws passed while this settles out.
The *ONE and ONLY* way to ensure that these laws aren't tabled, debated, and possibly passed is to make it absolutely clear to RIAA, that to do so will not save their business, but rather sink it irrevocably.
So it you are educating folks, do it right, or don't bother. Either you are in, or you are in the way.
This was tried before and the market shit all over it, right?
Then the decision is made bilaterally and obviously in collusion. Something guranteed to make the American public looooove you...
And this agreement benefits them how? I mean it brings along two huge negatives, the appearance of "price-fixing" and an unpopular limitation, but you maintain that this is somehow good for their business?
And I have to question wether either company would have tried a line like 1.5 x the PPV time-limit, knowing that their competitor probably implemented the limit the same way they did, by initing a variable, or reading it out of a file, and that negating such a claim is more than trivial....
I just don't see how two negatives and the loss of a trivial feature race are part of a conspiracy to fuck the consumer and make millions...
Okay, first of all, that is hardly a fair representation. RIAA had proof that piracy was occuring, after all, Napster wasn't all that devious about it. And they did win that case. So you can't blame them for defaulting to piracy, it happened before, and on a huge scale... So, for rhetoric purposes, your statement is fine, so long as we all remember it did happen, on a huge scale.
Secondly, we know RIAA monitors the P2P networks, after all they have identified folks to sue, right? They also use proxies to complicate the process, the whole hash thing, right? So those two pieces of information give a pretty good reason to believe that RIAA does have some idea of the actual scope of piracy.
But, even if they didn't, not touching RIAA property on the P2P networks makes sense. Yeah, c'mon and get me RIAA, and my counter suit while you are at it. Oh and let me introduce you to these loverly members of the Fourth Estate, I believe they have some questions about the substance of this suit...
Really, I think RIAA has a prety good picture of things, certainly they could misrepresent the facts, but facts have a funny way of coming to light, and that would be a bitch of a spin control job, something *I* would try to avoid in their place.
But, really, you only have three choices as far as this situation goes:
1) Obtain no RIAA music at all (or no music regardless of source.) Fine, this shows as a decrease in sales, but the burden of proof that this is due to piracy, particularly in a suit against an individual the burden of proof will be on RIAA. Hey if you really don't they can't prove you did...
2) Buy RIAA music. Hey if RIAA doesn't piss you off, this is probably what you should be doing... More or less obviates the piracy concern.
3) Participate in the illegal distribution of RIAA music (receipt is part of distribution.) This also shows up as a drop in CD sales, but is accompanied by no concurrent drop in the activity of the associated files on the P2P network...
Personally, I wish everyone would just stick with number 1 for awhile. First off, let em scream Piracy, we'd know better. Eventually so would the press, and the courts. What better way to undermine any respectability they yet retain? Secondly, they would know, and even if they screamed Piracy, the message would be getting through, especially when they started identifying the sources of all those new hashes out there. Wether they publicly admitted they were getting the point, they would. Sending the message is the goal, not public aknowledgement of it (allthough it would be nice....) Third, and last of all, let them go after the people who continue to participate in illegal distribution. Most of them are not motivated by some high and lofty purpose, and they would violate your or my rights as quickly as they would RIAAs. So if RIAA want's to try and get these people shut down and imprisoned or whatever, I for one am not going to shed a tear. I'm a musician, and a song writer, and that fucking clown could be violating my rights as easily as he does RIAAs. So let the stupid motherfucker put his neck on the block...
But, ultimately, I think the message does get through. Ultimately, it is the only message that is going to get through. It is well understood that once you lose a customer, it is damn near impossible to get them back. Given that RIAA pays close attention to their market, how are they going to react when they see the on-line evidence of lost customers?
But to work, the message must be clear, the revenue *must* be lost, not stolen. So long as a large number of folk continue to steal RIAA revenue by participation in unlawful distribution than RIAA has an imperative to act to recover those stolen revenues and prevent further losses. People bitch about the decline in quality acts, well this situation isn't helping. Instead of getting quality acts, and reacting to the wishes of their clientele they are fighting to protect their revenue streams, a fight for surv
Is there an easy and foolproof way to identify the hormonal abberrations and liquidate them *before* my employer realises that/. may not be required to do my job?
The sites they hightlight are places where you can get music unhindered by RIAA and it's policies. They advocate things like trying the artists site, they point out sources of un-RIAA-tainted music.
The one thing the article is not justifying (and clearly seperates itself from) is unlawfully distributing property for which RIAA has exclusive distribution rights. In point of fact, the article points out that RIAA does actually have the legal rights, technology may have complicated the enforcement of them, but that does not change the fact that they have those rights...
What the NYT *is* pointing out is that there are many places to get music without violating RIAA rights, and validating their position that file-sharing is destructive to their industry.
As I've preached repeatedly over the last year or so, there are options, and you should be exercising them. Which action sends a clearer message to RIAA, forswearing music for which member organizations have the exclusive distribution rights, or participating in the unlawful distribution of said materials... Considering that the second does nothing but convince RIAA that they have a valuable product (which many deny, but continue to validate RIAA with their actions...) and that their rights as regard that product are being violated. The first gives them no legal leg to stand on, and sends a clear message, you won't support RIAA, it's member agencies or the artists they retain. That is a clear and succinct message.
Kudos to the NYT for mainstreaming the *only* reasonable way to send a functional message to RIAA.
I agree 100%, you and the other detractors do need to get a little perspective. If you want to disagree with me, why don't you go after the meat of my argument and debate that?
Instead y'all make these cute, but irrelevant comments, which, really, had any of you been reading what I wrote, would realize just support my case.
I don't think it was any Earth-shattering revelation in my original post, quite the contrary in fact. It was rather pedestrian and obvious, or should have been to everyone.
However, I have to thank you, and my other detractors for their cute and irrelevant comments. Y'all did a better job of proving my point than I did.
And by once again trying to distract folk from the central issue, you are merely performing as a shill for Microsoft. You are rewarding them, for what? Are you indebted to them for making poor design choices?
I notice none of my detractors on this issue are willing to take the position that Microsoft was right to omit this capability in the original design decision. That is the point of my post, and the substance of my comments.
When you address things like dollar signs, and further dilute your non-opinion with facile observations about distros wanting to make money, you aren't addressing the point. The point is Microsoft made a poor design decision, which so far no-one is debating. I am taking the position that we shouldn't reward them for fixing what never should have happened in the first place, which also apparently no-one is debating. What everyone is debating, are trivialities I've included in my posts. Much like Microsoft announcing that Longhorn will implement security for removable devices...
So, I am vindicated, the detractors are completely incapable of meaningfully evaluating Micorosoft's original announcement, nor are they capable of debating the meat of my argument.
OMG! someone making fun of my acronyms! I guess that means nothing I said has any merit. Yeah and IE is a secure browser...
A suggestion my Microsoft-deluded friend, the same one made allready, either learn to prosecute an argument, or go back to doing something useful, in your case patching IE, help keep the internet clean kiddo...
I *am* saying that it is a design thing. I *am* questioning the basic design decisions that M$ made, but more importantly, I *am* challenging M$ to defend their decision to continue to build on a flawed paradigm.
To restate the old adage:
Never attribute to malice the result of rewarded stupidity.
Ultimately isn't it better to just stop rewarding stupidity?
Get a login and put a name behind your phlaming my friend...
Care to re-read my post, if I'm blasting M$ for anything, and I am, it is for trying to put positive spin on including something that should have been in the OS from the get-go.
Who I'm really basting are the people who legitimize M$'s tactic by trying to deflect the real issue, which is that the OS had glaring oversights compromising it from the very beginning. Particularly the ones who ought to know better.
But you, my M$-shill friend, you are intentionally trying to divert the conversation, actively fulfilling the role I am chiding my peers for inadvertently filling. You sir are beneath my contempt, and I will waste no more effort in upbraiding you. You have been punished enough, and as evidence I submit the contents of your hard drive. Perhaps, it you are lucky your common sense and better judgement will parole you from this unhappy state, but I detect that you are not truly repentant, and that you have no remorse over your crimes, so perhaps it would be better to commute your sentence to life, a life of bloated buggy OS code, overpriced with criminal support.
Want me to give it a rest? Learn how to prosecute an argument...
This not about corporate information security. This isn't about wether *admins should have the right to do this or not. Those are issues every company has to answer for themselves.
What this *is* about is just one more "feature" that M$ is putting into their offering that UNIX/Linux/Et. AL. have had forever.
When you start diluting the issue talking about the conspiracy mumbo-jumbo, and fascist *admins, and what have you, you really are helping M$ along...
The only rational answer to an announcement like this is:
That's not news, that's not a feature, that's integral to any well designed OS.
You know, the problem here isn't so much of fighting fire with fire. It's fighting fire with fire to protect the ability to light fires.
The P2P folk have a bunch of culpability in creating this situation too. Isn't there something inherently wrong about how they conduct their business? Freedoms are not commodities, but the P2P folk act as if they were. They offer a service which facilitates the exercise of freedoms which abridge the freedoms of others. In and of itself without any other considerations, this is ethically questionable, particularly when some of the abridged rights are those of children. Particularly when some of those abridged rights are the property and privacy rights of your own customers.
What really makes this odious though is that when a specific group takes actions to complicate the process of abridging their rights, then the P2P owners take action, specifically the odious aquisition and enforcement of a patent.
It becomes clearer and clearer that these networks exist only for the single purpose of facilitating the violation of RIAA property rights. The fact that they continue to allow the odious activity of child pornography distribution and continue to allow their networks to be a vector for malware distribution is merely a smokescreen for their actual agenda.
Now is the real odious part of the whole thing. For all that they would like to be a hero to us all, taking on and subduing the evil RIAA, when RIAA fights back and takes a 14 year old to court, where the hell was her P2P patron then? Did they step up and provide the lawyers to fight the good fight? Or did they sit on the sidelines and let their agenda be pursued on the legal fates of 14 year olds? Are they really the bastions for the free exchange of ideas, willing to stand and deliver, or are they just another pack of charlatans, making a quick buck on the cause of the week?
Are these people well serving your intrests? Or are you serving theirs?
Slashdot Mirror
Second, the bloody thing grew out of DARPAnet right, and DARPA stands for what? And who pays DARPA's bills? I'm not drawing any conclusion here, but I won't speak for the tinfoil hat crowd.
Three, *anyone* with the right knowledge and tools can intercept/block/eavesdrop on public traffic, after all it *is* public. Given the government could accomplish this without legislation, well right back to the opening paragraph...
Four, so the bill dies still-born, so what? A warrant for a wire-tap still can be obtained. So if your data rides your phone line, you are still screwed. Cable modems and phone-free DSL might be a bit of a challenge, but I would suggest that since the government operated from the position that it owns the infrastructure of transmission for a long long time, that there probably are mechanisms which would allow for tapping these media. IANAL, but it seems likely.
PGP? Are you on glue? Do you really think PGP is going to protect your content? Please, think a little longer. Hell, most of the worlds fastest supercomputers live in installations with NL (LLNL, INEL, etc. etc.) at the end of their acronym, and one government agency seems to be a little shy about telling the world how fast their machines really are. If you really think PGP is going to defeat the resources of a nation-state, you deserve the prosecution you get. The kind and quiet folks over at NSA have been playing the cryptography game significantly longer than the internet has existed. Also they played against the varsity, other nation-states.
There are good reasons to allow virtual taps, and very few good reasons to deny them. Now, the language and form of the legislation is hugely important. We accept that law enforcement can obtain a warrant to tap your phone line. We understand the mechanism, and I didn't see many of you folks protesting that. If the law is well written it will allow law enforcement the means to get usable evidence, and still have mechanisms to protect us from abuse of the law.
There is nothing wrong with the concept, there is however significant reason to be concerned about the language and scope of the proposed legislation. So long as the proper speed bumps exist, and the required precautions taken to prevent abuse, there is no need for this law to be of any more concern to the average citizen than the wire-tapping law.
Bottom line, like the wiretapping law, this legislation seeks to define the conditions under which an indidual's rights can be suspended. Like all criminal law really, it is a central tenent of our judicial system. The government *is* allowed to abridge your rights, that is what imprisonment is. The law itself is not unusual... ...but like any other piece of criminal law, we should be very watchful of the language...
For those who haven't read it, try "The Permanent Floating Riot Club" by Larry Niven. I can't remember which anthologies it is in, but a worthwhile read. At the end you won't be surprised by this phenom, except maybe that it isn't worse...
Because I'll love nothing better to find out that the level 7 game I just bought doesn't work on my level 7 system...
Particularly if it turns out to be something trivial like no 5.1 on the soundcard...
First, non-intervention *is* a wonderful idea, if the world's governments all felt the same way. So, if you play the game by the rules, and everyone else ignores the rules, you made a good decision why? Remember the world is not a Utopia, some people (IE Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden) won't be impressed by your lofty Libertarian position. Thus, it is not pragmatic at all. Being pragmatic does not give you the luxury of ignoring history. There is a lot of recent history which people have honest grievances with. Now, had the US been Libertarian all along, granted, some of those problems might not exist. But, this is the real world, and those governments weren't and those problems exist, and taking the ostrich way out isn't going to change that.
Second, I'm sure the Libertarians would agree with the view that government exists to provide those things we cannot easily provide for ourselves. Mr. Badnarak's guarantee that we're morally free to unseat Saddam Hussein is completely unsupportable. What individual possessed the ability to provide that? Even a large group of individuals could not provide this for themselves.
What about that situation? Let's take a clear majority of the electorate, and have them want to have Saddam Hussein unseated. Isn't the government obligated to respect the wishes of the electorate? If they fail to do so, what does that say about their lofty platform? So why state the position as an absolute? Particularly one which can never be an absolute?
Further not taking a position, *is* taking a position. If you refuse to interfere with the genocidal actions of a government, you are supporting those actions with your inaction. You are sending a clear signal to the mass murderers that their actions are OK. Period, these folks aren't applying your lofty Libertarian beliefs to your inaction, they are applying their beliefs to your inaction. Their beliefs had them committing genocide in the first place, want to wager how they will interpret inaction?
Lastly, I ask *you* to consider the Lafayette Escadrille, and the thousands of Americans who joined the Foreign Legion prior to the entry of the US into WWI. Many of us knew about the Lafayette Escadrille, many of us know about the thousands of Americans who joined the FFL to partake in that conflict. Nor was the French flag the only one under which Americans fought in that war. But, you conveniently overlook the effect that the decisions of those young men may have had in the final decision of the US government to enter the war. The vast majority of Americans involved in that war, prior to US entry, were with Candaian and French units, very few fought on the other side of the trenchline. Also consistently over the course of the war, American enlistments in these same armies continued to rise...
Isn't it strange that the US entered that war on the side it did? I mean, you don't think the fact that so many of your young men made the same choice affected the decision do you?
Fast forward to the second installment of the European Civil War... Why did the US wait two years to enter the war? I don't suppose that large segments of the US population vocally expressed Pro-German sentiment had anything to do with it? Right up until Dec 7 1941, prognosticating which side the US would join, if it did, was 6/5 and pick 'em. After Dec 7, 1941, the choice was clear and simple, not only for the government, but the populace as well.
Vietnam proves my point yet again... The US got into Vietnam on principle (ideology) not because the populace demanded or required it. And the result of that conflict, both home and abroad was nothing more than the consequnces of a democracy ignoring it's mandate from the people who elected it.
Iraq, now you got a point there, on the surface... GWB didn't invade Iraq because of a mandate from the people. Again it was ideology driving the process. GWB invaded Irag because his ideological beliefs demanded it, not the American public.
Everyone else out there, take note! A well thought out response to a little piece of flippant posting...
But, one overarching transport medium is probably not possible, nor desirable. First and foremost, a single technology is easier to corrupt than multiple technologies. Which was the flippant point. There is more than one way to skin a cat. When we all decide otherwise, that just opens the door for a Microsoft to pee in the cat skinning...(which is the core issue, M$ peeing in USB)
Ultimately I think the convenience of monolithic standards is vastly outwieghed by the vibrant development environment that competing standards can bring to the table. Aftrer all, how much of USB2 development was driven by the fact firewire eclipsed USB1?
Ultimately, that kind of competition ought to be better for the consumer, right?
How does the candidate feel about the recent events in the former Yugoslavia?
Okay, so the candidate does not specifically address these issues. But, does anyone in this day and age really think genocide should be viewed as a viable internal policy by the government of the United States?
Now, I don't mean to imply that the candidate is an apologist, or that he would not take action if faced with ssuch a situation. But the candidate makes the above assertion without qualification. Something I think should make all of our ears perk up, and something that the candidate should clarify his position on.
Because, when I read that statement, it is not an example of pragmatism, but an excuse for moral cowardice. While it may be pragmatic to ignore the internal policies of genocidal dictator, is it right? Is is a desirable policy for the US to take?
Again, I'm not trying to imply anything, but if the statement is an absolute, I am concerned. If the statemnt is not an absolute, why did the candidate decline to define what conditions would make that position less than absolute...
Lastly, I would invite the candidate to consider one more option. Perhaps the problem is less with the ideologies espoused by all the parties, but the inability to divorce the ideal from the possible...
After all, in an ideal world, the Patriot act is an okay piece of legislation, because in an ideal world it would not be abused. But we don't live in an ideal world, and ideology is just another way of denying reality.
As long as politicians stay wedded to an ideology, any ideology, there is little chance of real world improvements. The libertarian ideology while different than the admittedly near identical ideologies of the "main" parties, shares one critical commonality with them, the lack of relevance to the real world.
Ideologies by nature, are internally consistent, but this implies that if one of those internal consistencies fails to work in the real world, than the rest of that house of cards is suspect... Ideology, quite simply is the methodology to attain a Utopian state. Given that we accept Utopia as an impossibility, why do we assign so much importance to the yellow-brick road which purpotedly leads to it?
We'll just go firewire...
It makes a great sig!"
Having said that though, what about the case where the program detects a leaked serial number and immediately throws up a dialog. Said dialog tells you in no uncertain terms that the serial number supplied has been pirated, blah blah. Dialog then continues on to tell you that if you may continue the installation. Further the dialog explicitly and in horrifying detail tells you exactly what it will do if you do continue (erase ~, sleep with your wife, beat your kids, etc.) and then simply asks if you want to continue. If you're a nice guy, you make sure that they page down to the bottom of the dialog before allowing continue to be selected.
Voila! Now you have gotten the users permission to punish him for pirating your code. IANAL, but it's probably even legal. Best of all, you can curb one mailicious and one stupid tendency in one pass, piracy, and not reading dialogs...
Besides, one of the rationalizations that often comes up is the quality of RIAA offerings. Apart from the contrdictory nature of such an argument (it's so bad I'll steal it...) if one truly believes that, then one has options other than unlawful distribution...
Utopian, sure a bit. A sacrifice, maybe, but what am I asking you to sacrifice? All I ask you to give up is convenience. RIAA is simply the most convenient way to get music, wether via lawful or unlawful distribution vectors. Really, that is the only service RIAA is offering.
Given the strong feelings that many profess to have about RIAA and it's members, is giving up the convenience that onerous a request?
People talk incessantly about their freedoms which RIAA seeks to violate. So what? Many of us have ancestors who gave up their lives for the freedoms which we debate here. Are we really doing their sacrifice a service when we violate those rights? Are we doing their sacrifice a service when we are too lazy to take simple steps to protect our rights?
If folk are too lazy to put some effort into protecting their rights, and find a better way than resorting to violating others rights, then perhaps we need to analyze just how important our freedoms are to us. When we resort to amoral and unethical means, what does that really say about our motivations? or our goals?
Bottom line, these are important issues, and laziness is *NOT* and acceptable reason for not doing what needs to be done. And, when I talk aobut laziness, I'm including both doing nothing, and participating in the unlawful distribution of RIAA controlled material...
As for RIAA knowing, and the strategy they have espoused. Well, first, they can try all the legislation they want. They are unlikely to be able to prevent you from continuing to get your music from non RIAA sources. Some of this legislation is bad, and just wrong though. But whose purpose do you serve when you are too lazy to react, or too lazy to react correctly?
IANAL, but, the GPL is based on a simple fact: For any given binary source code exists. This software has the potential to permanently alter that equation. What exactly is the status of source built by reverse engineering a translated binary? I think there is a potential issue there for the GPL, and even some poorly written Closed Source Licenses... (though these are rare nowadays...)
I wouldn't care to bet one way or the other, but maybe a pre-emptive rewording of certain portions of the GPL is in order...
Now, I don't think they will aknowledge that the message is being sent, or that they have received it, at least not directly. But, RIAA is no less exposed to certain fundamental truths of the human condition that anyone else, the operative one here being that it is damn near impossible once lost, to regain a customer.
So, they may not act like they are getting the message, but they will be. Any group that has the wherewithal to identify, and try to fool with the process of unlawful distribution certainly has the data to correctly identify the nature of such a movement.
Educating folk is a good way, but if you are educating them just to get allies to oppose their legislation, and those people start pirating because they can't come to the right conclusion, what have you accomplished? Exactly, nothing.
Educating folk is critical. You have to educate them as to their options first. Educating them to oppose legislation is wonderful, but if they keep buying RIAA CDs....
Edudacting folk in this case *MANDATES* that you give them responsible options. it *MANDATES* that you give them alternatives which don't muddy the message or support the foe.
Folks don't get it. RIAA is fighting this battle on every front they can identify. They have vast resources, the will to use them, and the evidence to justify their agenda. If we don't start fighting RIAA with our brains, instead of our greed, with a coherent complete plan, instead of the fractious little ones, and most of all, dealing with the real core issues that we can address, effectively, instead of having limited viewpoints, or convincing ourselves the message won't get through...
The *ONE and ONLY* way to ensure that these laws aren't tabled, debated, and possibly passed is to make it absolutely clear to RIAA, that to do so will not save their business, but rather sink it irrevocably.
So it you are educating folks, do it right, or don't bother. Either you are in, or you are in the way.
This was tried before and the market shit all over it, right?
Then the decision is made bilaterally and obviously in collusion. Something guranteed to make the American public looooove you...
And this agreement benefits them how? I mean it brings along two huge negatives, the appearance of "price-fixing" and an unpopular limitation, but you maintain that this is somehow good for their business?
And I have to question wether either company would have tried a line like 1.5 x the PPV time-limit, knowing that their competitor probably implemented the limit the same way they did, by initing a variable, or reading it out of a file, and that negating such a claim is more than trivial....
I just don't see how two negatives and the loss of a trivial feature race are part of a conspiracy to fuck the consumer and make millions...
It must be Friday...
Secondly, we know RIAA monitors the P2P networks, after all they have identified folks to sue, right? They also use proxies to complicate the process, the whole hash thing, right? So those two pieces of information give a pretty good reason to believe that RIAA does have some idea of the actual scope of piracy.
But, even if they didn't, not touching RIAA property on the P2P networks makes sense. Yeah, c'mon and get me RIAA, and my counter suit while you are at it. Oh and let me introduce you to these loverly members of the Fourth Estate, I believe they have some questions about the substance of this suit...
Really, I think RIAA has a prety good picture of things, certainly they could misrepresent the facts, but facts have a funny way of coming to light, and that would be a bitch of a spin control job, something *I* would try to avoid in their place.
But, really, you only have three choices as far as this situation goes:
1) Obtain no RIAA music at all (or no music regardless of source.) Fine, this shows as a decrease in sales, but the burden of proof that this is due to piracy, particularly in a suit against an individual the burden of proof will be on RIAA. Hey if you really don't they can't prove you did...
2) Buy RIAA music. Hey if RIAA doesn't piss you off, this is probably what you should be doing... More or less obviates the piracy concern.
3) Participate in the illegal distribution of RIAA music (receipt is part of distribution.) This also shows up as a drop in CD sales, but is accompanied by no concurrent drop in the activity of the associated files on the P2P network...
Personally, I wish everyone would just stick with number 1 for awhile. First off, let em scream Piracy, we'd know better. Eventually so would the press, and the courts. What better way to undermine any respectability they yet retain? Secondly, they would know, and even if they screamed Piracy, the message would be getting through, especially when they started identifying the sources of all those new hashes out there. Wether they publicly admitted they were getting the point, they would. Sending the message is the goal, not public aknowledgement of it (allthough it would be nice....) Third, and last of all, let them go after the people who continue to participate in illegal distribution. Most of them are not motivated by some high and lofty purpose, and they would violate your or my rights as quickly as they would RIAAs. So if RIAA want's to try and get these people shut down and imprisoned or whatever, I for one am not going to shed a tear. I'm a musician, and a song writer, and that fucking clown could be violating my rights as easily as he does RIAAs. So let the stupid motherfucker put his neck on the block...
But, ultimately, I think the message does get through. Ultimately, it is the only message that is going to get through. It is well understood that once you lose a customer, it is damn near impossible to get them back. Given that RIAA pays close attention to their market, how are they going to react when they see the on-line evidence of lost customers?
But to work, the message must be clear, the revenue *must* be lost, not stolen. So long as a large number of folk continue to steal RIAA revenue by participation in unlawful distribution than RIAA has an imperative to act to recover those stolen revenues and prevent further losses. People bitch about the decline in quality acts, well this situation isn't helping. Instead of getting quality acts, and reacting to the wishes of their clientele they are fighting to protect their revenue streams, a fight for surv
Is there an easy and foolproof way to identify the hormonal abberrations and liquidate them *before* my employer realises that /. may not be required to do my job?
The sites they hightlight are places where you can get music unhindered by RIAA and it's policies. They advocate things like trying the artists site, they point out sources of un-RIAA-tainted music.
The one thing the article is not justifying (and clearly seperates itself from) is unlawfully distributing property for which RIAA has exclusive distribution rights. In point of fact, the article points out that RIAA does actually have the legal rights, technology may have complicated the enforcement of them, but that does not change the fact that they have those rights...
What the NYT *is* pointing out is that there are many places to get music without violating RIAA rights, and validating their position that file-sharing is destructive to their industry.
As I've preached repeatedly over the last year or so, there are options, and you should be exercising them. Which action sends a clearer message to RIAA, forswearing music for which member organizations have the exclusive distribution rights, or participating in the unlawful distribution of said materials... Considering that the second does nothing but convince RIAA that they have a valuable product (which many deny, but continue to validate RIAA with their actions...) and that their rights as regard that product are being violated. The first gives them no legal leg to stand on, and sends a clear message, you won't support RIAA, it's member agencies or the artists they retain. That is a clear and succinct message.
Kudos to the NYT for mainstreaming the *only* reasonable way to send a functional message to RIAA.
Instead y'all make these cute, but irrelevant comments, which, really, had any of you been reading what I wrote, would realize just support my case.
I don't think it was any Earth-shattering revelation in my original post, quite the contrary in fact. It was rather pedestrian and obvious, or should have been to everyone.
However, I have to thank you, and my other detractors for their cute and irrelevant comments. Y'all did a better job of proving my point than I did.
My Kernel for competent opposition!
This is an insight none of us should ever forget.
I notice none of my detractors on this issue are willing to take the position that Microsoft was right to omit this capability in the original design decision. That is the point of my post, and the substance of my comments.
When you address things like dollar signs, and further dilute your non-opinion with facile observations about distros wanting to make money, you aren't addressing the point. The point is Microsoft made a poor design decision, which so far no-one is debating. I am taking the position that we shouldn't reward them for fixing what never should have happened in the first place, which also apparently no-one is debating. What everyone is debating, are trivialities I've included in my posts. Much like Microsoft announcing that Longhorn will implement security for removable devices...
So, I am vindicated, the detractors are completely incapable of meaningfully evaluating Micorosoft's original announcement, nor are they capable of debating the meat of my argument.
OMG! someone making fun of my acronyms! I guess that means nothing I said has any merit. Yeah and IE is a secure browser...
A suggestion my Microsoft-deluded friend, the same one made allready, either learn to prosecute an argument, or go back to doing something useful, in your case patching IE, help keep the internet clean kiddo...
Today's word is somnambulist, boy oh boy, yer all gonna be fucked tomorrow... ;)
I *am* saying that it is a design thing. I *am* questioning the basic design decisions that M$ made, but more importantly, I *am* challenging M$ to defend their decision to continue to build on a flawed paradigm.
To restate the old adage:
Ultimately isn't it better to just stop rewarding stupidity?
Care to re-read my post, if I'm blasting M$ for anything, and I am, it is for trying to put positive spin on including something that should have been in the OS from the get-go.
Who I'm really basting are the people who legitimize M$'s tactic by trying to deflect the real issue, which is that the OS had glaring oversights compromising it from the very beginning. Particularly the ones who ought to know better.
But you, my M$-shill friend, you are intentionally trying to divert the conversation, actively fulfilling the role I am chiding my peers for inadvertently filling. You sir are beneath my contempt, and I will waste no more effort in upbraiding you. You have been punished enough, and as evidence I submit the contents of your hard drive. Perhaps, it you are lucky your common sense and better judgement will parole you from this unhappy state, but I detect that you are not truly repentant, and that you have no remorse over your crimes, so perhaps it would be better to commute your sentence to life, a life of bloated buggy OS code, overpriced with criminal support.
Want me to give it a rest? Learn how to prosecute an argument...
Offtopic me, I don't care, I have the karma of a 5-digit...
What this *is* about is just one more "feature" that M$ is putting into their offering that UNIX/Linux/Et. AL. have had forever.
When you start diluting the issue talking about the conspiracy mumbo-jumbo, and fascist *admins, and what have you, you really are helping M$ along...
The only rational answer to an announcement like this is:
The P2P folk have a bunch of culpability in creating this situation too. Isn't there something inherently wrong about how they conduct their business? Freedoms are not commodities, but the P2P folk act as if they were. They offer a service which facilitates the exercise of freedoms which abridge the freedoms of others. In and of itself without any other considerations, this is ethically questionable, particularly when some of the abridged rights are those of children. Particularly when some of those abridged rights are the property and privacy rights of your own customers.
What really makes this odious though is that when a specific group takes actions to complicate the process of abridging their rights, then the P2P owners take action, specifically the odious aquisition and enforcement of a patent.
It becomes clearer and clearer that these networks exist only for the single purpose of facilitating the violation of RIAA property rights. The fact that they continue to allow the odious activity of child pornography distribution and continue to allow their networks to be a vector for malware distribution is merely a smokescreen for their actual agenda.
Now is the real odious part of the whole thing. For all that they would like to be a hero to us all, taking on and subduing the evil RIAA, when RIAA fights back and takes a 14 year old to court, where the hell was her P2P patron then? Did they step up and provide the lawyers to fight the good fight? Or did they sit on the sidelines and let their agenda be pursued on the legal fates of 14 year olds? Are they really the bastions for the free exchange of ideas, willing to stand and deliver, or are they just another pack of charlatans, making a quick buck on the cause of the week?
Are these people well serving your intrests? Or are you serving theirs?